Why is fantasy the dominant RPG genre?
- Thread starter Chainsaw Mage
- Start date
Psion
Adventurer
This may echo some other sentiments on the first page, but generally, I think that players have less realistic expectations for fantasy (the corollary of which is that it is easier for the GM to run things, which was mentioned on the first page.) With fantasy, if the DM does something off the wall, it's accepted, because it's almost an expected element. Contrast this with modern and SF, in which plot elements often require a bit more beleivable justification. For some players this isn't true, but others of us... well, didn't quite buy the last two James Bond flicks. 
That said, I don't think it is so easy to dispense with the role of D&D's primacy. It played a big role in popularizing fantasy. Now true, it wouldn't be anything without LotR. But then, it spawned a host of videogames and immitators that were seminal influences for many would be gamers. This root commonality created an experience that was shared between many fantasy enthusiasts.
Finally, I think that it's root design has an enduring appeal and ease of use. Many games exist that suit particular tastes better, but D&D has elements that are simple to play, simple to use, and appeal to basic desires of many people who call themselves gamers. To wit:
That said, I don't think it is so easy to dispense with the role of D&D's primacy. It played a big role in popularizing fantasy. Now true, it wouldn't be anything without LotR. But then, it spawned a host of videogames and immitators that were seminal influences for many would be gamers. This root commonality created an experience that was shared between many fantasy enthusiasts.
Finally, I think that it's root design has an enduring appeal and ease of use. Many games exist that suit particular tastes better, but D&D has elements that are simple to play, simple to use, and appeal to basic desires of many people who call themselves gamers. To wit:
- Strong, simple core group activity model - many RPGs these days leave you wondering just who the PCs are, why they should have anything to do with each other, and what they are expected to do. With D&D, usually these elements are straightforward and well supported by the metasetting assumptions: the PCs are a group of adventurers with complementing skills, who gather to grapple with threats, gain fame & forture. I think that a lot of games miss this element of the game, and leave the GM wondering what to do or needing to conjure up their own basic premise.
- Simple magic - no complicated theories about why magic works the way it does. It's simple "pick x from list A, y from list B" lets players who don't think about this everyday get into the game and experience a visceral feeling of possession and power without delving into esoterica and accounting.
- Levels - many popular videogames exploit the phenomenon of "just one more quest" (planet, city conquered, whatever) to give the players momentum. D&D's level mechanic was the first to deliver this short term abstract goal oriented mechanic and continues to do so in a day and age when many self-proclaimed "better" RPGs decry such mechanics.
buzz
Adventurer
If you look at the early history of RPGs, one thing you'll notice is that it tends to focus on genres that involve a great deal of world-building; namely, fantasy and SF. D&D, Traveller, Tekumel, Metamorphosis Alpha, Runequest, and so on. Until Champions came out in 1982, V&V and Superhero2044 were pretty much it for supers, and I don't recollect any horror games in existence before Call of Chtulhu came out.
Ergo, I think that there is something about world-building genres that draws the kind of people who are attracted to the RPG concept. I mean, how many times have you had some gamer eager to explain to you "how magic works in *my* world"?
Now, in looking at fantasy and SF in particular, an important difference is that SF tends to focus more on *concepts* than it does on characters. Look at Asimov's Foundation; that whole series is really the exploration of various theories. It's not really about any one particular character (save Hari Seldon, but he's almost more like a force of nature). Tolkien, otoh, can write a sprawling epic that opens up a vastly imgained world, yet it's still very much about a couple of hobbits and their buddies. Granted, there are exceptions to this (Trek, SW), but I think it can be identified as a trend.
Ergo, fantasy appeals to the world-building needs of those attracted to it, yet still is primarily focused on individuals; the needs of both the GM and the players are being satisfied.
Then we add the aformentioned research needs. You look at any general RPG book on SF (e.g., Star HERO, GURPS Space), and you'll notice a lot of pages dedicated to familiarizing the reader with cosmology, planetology, and physics. SF demands at least a veneer of scientific verisimilitude (e.g., the technical mumbo-jumbo featured so prominently on Trek).
Fantasy (and space opera, like Star Wars or Flash Gordon) does not require this. Sure, a knowledge of mythology and history is useful, but it's not *necessary* to the same degree. The the strong tropes of post-Tolkien fantasy and the implied setting of D&D, in particular, also takes on a lot of the world-creating burden. The GM, then, is simply required to describe what *is*, not so much *how it all works*. You're not starting from scratch so much as rearranging the peices.
(This isn't to say that fantasy world-building is easy; I disputed that in my post about the supers genre. But world-building itself is the draw I'm talking about, and world-building is simply not as big a part of genres like supers, horror, or modern action.)
Lastly, I think that the kind of people who tend to like RPGs tend to be avid readers. The kind of people who, when faced with the prospect of reading 900 pages of rules, say "Cool!" I.e., they're in a literary/reader mindset. SF has morphed in recent decades from being a literary genre to one generally conveyed via television or film. Ditto horror, barring Stephen King (and even then, most of his works have been made into movies), and the ascendance of Anne Rice (which, poof!, inspired V:TM). Supers is born of comic books and animated movies; leaving aside arguments about the literary merit of comics, we're again not talking about traditional literature, or traditional "readers". Fantasy, however, seems to rarely escape the confines of the printed page, at least with any sort of quality. The recent LOTR films --and, stretching our deifnition of fantasy a bit, Harry Potter-- are the glaring exceptions to this.
Ergo, added to the observations above, I think that fantasy, by it's very nature, attracts the book-lover, and book-lovers, in turn, tend to be the ranks from which gamers tend to be born.
Given all of this, it's no surprise to me that it was fantasy that inspired Arneson and Gygax to create the hobby, and fantasy that conitnues to dominate it. It simply has all the elements that make it well-suited to the concept of the RPG and the kind of people attracted to it.
However, I think that there has been some evolution. In 1974, being a wargaming/fantasy/SF geek was all about being an avid reader. Now, though, we're seeing avid consumpiton of movies and TV informing the average gamer geek. Voila! We see more successful games based on film/TV licenses, the continued use of "cinematic" as a desireable trait for an RPG system, and a general broadening of subject matter inspiring the hobby.
Ergo, I think that there is something about world-building genres that draws the kind of people who are attracted to the RPG concept. I mean, how many times have you had some gamer eager to explain to you "how magic works in *my* world"?
Now, in looking at fantasy and SF in particular, an important difference is that SF tends to focus more on *concepts* than it does on characters. Look at Asimov's Foundation; that whole series is really the exploration of various theories. It's not really about any one particular character (save Hari Seldon, but he's almost more like a force of nature). Tolkien, otoh, can write a sprawling epic that opens up a vastly imgained world, yet it's still very much about a couple of hobbits and their buddies. Granted, there are exceptions to this (Trek, SW), but I think it can be identified as a trend.
Ergo, fantasy appeals to the world-building needs of those attracted to it, yet still is primarily focused on individuals; the needs of both the GM and the players are being satisfied.
Then we add the aformentioned research needs. You look at any general RPG book on SF (e.g., Star HERO, GURPS Space), and you'll notice a lot of pages dedicated to familiarizing the reader with cosmology, planetology, and physics. SF demands at least a veneer of scientific verisimilitude (e.g., the technical mumbo-jumbo featured so prominently on Trek).
Fantasy (and space opera, like Star Wars or Flash Gordon) does not require this. Sure, a knowledge of mythology and history is useful, but it's not *necessary* to the same degree. The the strong tropes of post-Tolkien fantasy and the implied setting of D&D, in particular, also takes on a lot of the world-creating burden. The GM, then, is simply required to describe what *is*, not so much *how it all works*. You're not starting from scratch so much as rearranging the peices.
(This isn't to say that fantasy world-building is easy; I disputed that in my post about the supers genre. But world-building itself is the draw I'm talking about, and world-building is simply not as big a part of genres like supers, horror, or modern action.)
Lastly, I think that the kind of people who tend to like RPGs tend to be avid readers. The kind of people who, when faced with the prospect of reading 900 pages of rules, say "Cool!" I.e., they're in a literary/reader mindset. SF has morphed in recent decades from being a literary genre to one generally conveyed via television or film. Ditto horror, barring Stephen King (and even then, most of his works have been made into movies), and the ascendance of Anne Rice (which, poof!, inspired V:TM). Supers is born of comic books and animated movies; leaving aside arguments about the literary merit of comics, we're again not talking about traditional literature, or traditional "readers". Fantasy, however, seems to rarely escape the confines of the printed page, at least with any sort of quality. The recent LOTR films --and, stretching our deifnition of fantasy a bit, Harry Potter-- are the glaring exceptions to this.
Ergo, added to the observations above, I think that fantasy, by it's very nature, attracts the book-lover, and book-lovers, in turn, tend to be the ranks from which gamers tend to be born.
Given all of this, it's no surprise to me that it was fantasy that inspired Arneson and Gygax to create the hobby, and fantasy that conitnues to dominate it. It simply has all the elements that make it well-suited to the concept of the RPG and the kind of people attracted to it.
However, I think that there has been some evolution. In 1974, being a wargaming/fantasy/SF geek was all about being an avid reader. Now, though, we're seeing avid consumpiton of movies and TV informing the average gamer geek. Voila! We see more successful games based on film/TV licenses, the continued use of "cinematic" as a desireable trait for an RPG system, and a general broadening of subject matter inspiring the hobby.
Desdichado
Hero
Great post, buzz! I know from my own personal perspective that world-building is one of the most enjoyable aspects of GMing, so for that reason I do like fantasy, but I like fantasy anyway, so it's a bit of a no-brainer for me.
Psion said:
I think you largely echoed the theories expressed in my previous posts, although you may have said it better.
I remember playing R. Talisorians Cyberpunk some 15 years ago. Players were expected to build cohesive teams consisting of rock stars, yuppies, hitmen, hackers, and telejournalists. It was a mix of characters that craved the limelight and others that were engaged in hush-hush black ops. I had fun playing it, but nobody ever had a clear idea of what we were supposed to be doing. We'd get together to raid some megacorporation's lab, and the rockerboy would start complaining that he never gets a chance to play his quitar. He wanted to go stage a rock concert instead.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
